It doesn't really matter what happened at oral arguments. They are largely meaningless theater. What matters is the arguments in the briefs, and the logic the panel can find in there to arrive at the conclusion that they want to arrive at. Namely: guns are bad, and no way are we going to be the ones to open the door for all you crazies to be legally carrying in public.

I predict a loss, which is good because we then have a straight shot at SCOTUS instead of getting all caught up in an en banc review.

Well, we need at least one win for a circuit split. So far we're losing at all Circuits. SCOTUS could choose not to take up certiorari on something that has no split. Add to that that B.O. has 4 more years to spin SCOTUS in the leftist direction and you have Heller/McDonald as the high water mark very much in danger.

Well, we need at least one win for a circuit split. So far we're losing at all Circuits. SCOTUS could choose not to take up certiorari on something that has no split. Add to that that B.O. has 4 more years to spin SCOTUS in the leftist direction and you have Heller/McDonald as the high water mark very much in danger.

A circuit split isn't an absolute requirement before SCOTUS will review. It's just the best way to guarantee a review.

In regards to the San Diego case, I have a feeling all that will come from it is that Sheriffs will be required to explain WHY they are denying a CCW permit. I haven't listened to the other arguments but it seems counsel for SD was trying to blame the State law, protect his Sheriff and at the same time say that because guns are bad there is no reason to argue the constitutionality of the State law and by proxy what the Sheriff is doing.

Like I said, I dont think anything other than a reason for denial will come from this case.

It doesn't really matter what happened at oral arguments. They are largely meaningless theater. What matters is the arguments in the briefs,...

I hope so, because the orals seemed really...unprofessional. I expected much more polished presentations, at least from Clement and Gura. I came away assuming they must not matter too much, glad to have some confirmation.

Quote:

I predict a loss

Not going out on any limbs there. Still, didn't it seem like the female judge was very pro-2A? Maybe it's not possible to determine a judges personal feeling from the questions they ask, when they interrupt counsel, etc, but if I were an anti, she would have worried me greatly.

Not going out on any limbs there. Still, didn't it seem like the female judge was very pro-2A? Maybe it's not possible to determine a judges personal feeling from the questions they ask, when they interrupt counsel, etc, but if I were an anti, she would have worried me greatly.

Using ObamaCare as a comparison, there were some questions asked that almost made it seem like a lock it would be overturned. Since then, I give no credence to questions asked and definitely none to the 9th Circus.

Callahan is our only potential friend being a Wilson/Bush appointee, but Kennedy was suppose to be a conservative friend as well....

Peruta
Mr. Clement seemed to be on the ball, especially, considering the limited scope of their argument.

Was it just me, or did Mr. Chapin representing San Diego state that the statute was an unconstitutional burden, and the sheriff offered relief from that burden? It seemed that he was dodging all questions, and really had no counter argument to Mr. Clement. Towards the tail end his arguments became a purely emotional appeal.

Richards
Mr. Gura hit it out of the park. For those of you disappointed in his argument, what did he miss?

Mr. Whiteside was downright disturbing. He seems to have no understanding of current CA carry laws; was he just trying to make stuff up so the judges would think we have some form of carry? I could swear he told me LOC in my car was perfectly legal.

Baker
Mr. Holcomb - not reassuring in any sense of the word.

Ms. Van Aken - orals were just as disorganized Mr. Holcomb. Guns are scary - only those with a badge should carry them.

In summary, I would love to read the defenses' briefs, none of them seemed like they had prepared anything at all. It doesn't seem like there's any way we can lose either Peruta or Richards. Therefore, echoing everyone else, I predict a loss across the board.

Now that we've listened to all of that, let's wait for the ruling, and kcbrown to be correct. The real world does not tolerate optimism!

Where's my sammich? I need to prepare for me nap.

__________________
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." ~ Douglas MacArthur

Treat every stressful situation like a dog.
If you can't eat it, play with it, or hump it ...
PISS ON IT and walk away.

In the HI case. Does it make sense to only issue gun carry rights to police that actively pursue people that may lead to a deadly confrontation with guns being involved?

How can that be better than issuing carry permits to people who do not pursue people, only citizens that are pursued by criminals will use their gun and only when left no other choice but grave bodily harm or death imminent?

Obviously I'm going down the wrong path, if they disarmed the police the argument would be a moot point and that's not what we are after.

JMO:
SD = win
CA = could go either way.
HI = back to the drawing board. It reminded me of when I fought a speeding ticket in court. If I would of defined the "why" I was not guilty I would of had a chance. It seems the case is more about getting one person his permit and not about overturning the policy of may issue w/just cause. No disrespect intended toward Mr. Holcomb. I wasn't there.

In the 3rd audio file, Gura's presentation seems kinda weak. I've never heard him speak before, and he didn't seem to be the master orator I had imagined based on the hype around here. Or maybe he wasn't bringing his A game? Maybe speaking isn't his strong suit? His opponent did the best job of any of the three, as least as long as you accept without questioning what he presents as facts...

I'd respectfully disagree. Gura did more than a fine job of arguing the case and Yolo's attorney literally made up law as he went. If Yolo was the strongest of the three opposition counsel, then...

Quote:

In sum, it's really depressing to hear how the 2nd Amendment is treated. Phrases like, "There must be some way, some how, however restricted and limited by the State, to exercise the right..." from our side(!) make me believe the Framers are spinning in their grave at what we have become...

You're taking the opposition's bait of getting into the weeds. The bottom line is that either the Second Amendment applies outside the home or it doesn't. If it does, then we win and another case(s) will determine the sort of regulations that are permissible.

-Brandon

__________________Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

I would say the only thing that Gura missed (and he only missed slightly) is that when UOC was dicussed vs LCC, he didn't stress the point enough that an unloaded firearm is not a firearm, it's dead weight and that any form of unladed carry is not carry of anything but an expensive throwing weapon. Opposition set him up perfectly for it with his weak dictation of new and existing laws, but Alan didn't pick it up in his final few minutes. Other than that, I agree with the many here that say he did a stellar job!

Richards
Mr. Gura hit it out of the park. For those of you disappointed in his argument, what did he miss?

Mr. Whiteside was downright disturbing. He seems to have no understanding of current CA carry laws; was he just trying to make stuff up so the judges would think we have some form of carry? I could swear he told me LOC in my car was perfectly legal.

I was thinking the same thing. The way he was describing it, if you can legally have the gun (LOC at your private property and drive to the gun range) at the starting point and the ending point of your drive you could carry in your car. It made my head spin. Don't try this at home BTW LOL

Not only that, but toward the end of his diatribe he said that the "new" penal code would require locked, unloaded, not in glovebox when transporting in a car, intimating that the existing penal code does not. This is another part where Gura should have driven home the point that "transporting" firearms is not the same as "bearing" them. Opportunity missed. I think a carjacking scenario would have been appropriate...."please goood criminal sir, do you mind waiting until I unlock my firearm, load it, and then we can carry on with your crime????" All in all the point that unloaded and locked is completely worthless was not explored enough. Prieto's counsel presented all of the legal methods of transporting arms as evidence of not substantially violating the 2A right, when in fact anything other than loaded and readily at hand is in fact a substantial curtailment of the right. Gura should have jumped all over that.

[QUOTE=MrBrent;9869276]

Quote:

Originally Posted by live2suck

Peruta

Richards
Mr. Gura hit it out of the park. For those of you disappointed in his argument, what did he miss?

Mr. Whiteside was downright disturbing. He seems to have no understanding of current CA carry laws; was he just trying to make stuff up so the judges would think we have some form of carry? I could swear he told me LOC in my car was perfectly legal.

I was thinking the same thing. The way he was describing it, if you can legally have the gun (LOC at your private property and drive to the gun range) at the starting point and the ending point of your drive you could carry in your car. It made my head spin. Don't try this at home BTW LOL

In sum, it's really depressing to hear how the 2nd Amendment is treated. Phrases like, "There must be some way, some how, however restricted and limited by the State, to exercise the right..." from our side(!) make me believe the Framers are spinning in their grave at what we have become...

That statement doesn't mean what you think it means. Arguing in court isn't like political speeches. The speaker isn't saying that the state greatly limiting and restricting the right is good or correct. He's making the point that even if we give the state the maximum benefit of the doubt and assume that the state is allowed to restrict and limit the right, their conduct *STILL* fails to pass Constitutional muster.

I have to somewhat agree with Bulgron at the top of the page, orals are a very small part of the appeal process, the briefs are where the real case is made so an appellate lawyer who is horrible in court can still win.

What watching the orals does do is let us see the issues involved in a slightly more clear way because a 20 page brief may only have one paragraph on the key legal theory that determines the case (with the rest being setup material).

In the 3rd audio file, Gura's presentation seems kinda weak. I've never heard him speak before, and he didn't seem to be the master orator I had imagined based on the hype around here. Or maybe he wasn't bringing his A game? Maybe speaking isn't his strong suit? His opponent did the best job of any of the three, as least as long as you accept without questioning what he presents as facts...

I'd respectfully disagree. Gura did more than a fine job of arguing the case and Yolo's attorney literally made up law as he went. If Yolo was the strongest of the three opposition counsel, then...

I appreciate your disagreement very much. I want badly to be wrong! Keep in mind I'm speaking as a person who has absolutely zero idea about all this legal stuff, so it's really surface commentary -- how he came across as a speaker, since his facts are obviously spot on.

Among other things, I was really shocked to hear him say, "Y'know.." three times. Not going to earn a spot on the debate team with that, right?

He brings in results, and that's what matters. I just assumed such a person would be a public speaker out of The Devil and Daniel Webster or something.

Agreed on the Yolo thing, I caught a couple things that made me scratch my head, did some CGN wiki-reading, and was, "..this guy is spewing bull****!"

Why don't the judges call him out on that stuff? Are you allowed to just puke out whatever lies you want during orals without repercussions?

Quote:

The bottom line is that either the Second Amendment applies outside the home or it doesn't. If it does, then we win and another case(s) will determine the sort of regulations that are permissible.

-Brandon

On the subject of winning...do you feel that there's any "tell" from a judges tone, choice of timing on interruptions of counsel, and questions to counsel as to how they lean politically / personally?

After Yolo's counsel was up, we started taking bets on how soon it will be before the Ninth starts mandatory drug testing. Honestly, some of us were wondering if maybe there was a mistake and he was arguing the wrong case.

The good news is that, according to Yolo's attorney, you can now carry a gun into a bar. It just has to be unloaded.

Did he really say that you can do that without qualification? In the audio I'm only hearing him say that under AB 144 you can carry an unloaded gun into a bar with the owner/tenant's permission. If you could point me to where he says otherwise that would be great, I've been looking but can't find it. ETA: he's clear that need the owner/tenant's permission to openly carry unloaded in a bar (e.g., 26:00 of the Richards audio).

Gura's presentation seems kinda weak. I've never heard him speak before, and he didn't seem to be the master orator I had imagined based on the hype around here.

I didn't think anyone claimed Gura was a master orator, spellbinding and riveting. What they claim is that he's a master litigator, knows how to cut to the chase, knows his case inside and out, and probably knows his opponent's case better than the opponent.

Did he really say that you can do that without qualification? In the audio I'm only hearing him say that under AB 144 you can carry an unloaded gun into a bar with the owner/tenant's permission. If you could point me to where he says otherwise that would be great, I've been looking but can't find it. ETA: he's clear that need the owner/tenant's permission to openly carry unloaded in a bar (e.g., 26:00 of the Richards audio).

The way i heard it he talked about private property and permission to carry but when he referenced the bars he said no such thing. At least that was my recollection of what i was hearing,

After listening to it twice i still came up with a WTF? So i replayed it again and well i could find no correlation to the private land and the bar comment. Funny thing though is that an LTC holder is generally not allowed to carry loaded in a place that primarily serves alcohol. Usually sheriffs rules.

San Diego's attorney was attempting to do some spectacular rhetorical gymnastics. The sheriff doesn't burden the right, the statute does, but the statute pertaining to concealed carry is not unconstitutional? LOL

Hawaii's plaintiff's attorney seemed very discombobulated. He didn't seem to be very prepared to argue his case, which is suprising considering he had just heard 2 other attorneys argue more effectively on the broader issue. The "good news" is that his request before the court was only for a preliminary injunction against the law Hawaii was trying to implement, rather than challenging a sheriff's policy or the statute itself.

__________________Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton

I would say the only thing that Gura missed (and he only missed slightly) is that when UOC was dicussed vs LCC, he didn't stress the point enough that an unloaded firearm is not a firearm, it's dead weight and that any form of unladed carry is not carry of anything but an expensive throwing weapon. Opposition set him up perfectly for it with his weak dictation of new and existing laws, but Alan didn't pick it up in his final few minutes. Other than that, I agree with the many here that say he did a stellar job!

I completely agree - I thought that was a meatball pitched that Gura just took looking. <--- Man, I love mixing baseball analogies to guns! What a great country!

On the subject of winning...do you feel that there's any "tell" from a judges tone, choice of timing on interruptions of counsel, and questions to counsel as to how they lean politically / personally?

If so, did you witness any of that during these orals?

At SCOTUS, it was pretty clear who was going to vote no incorporation in McDonald v. Chicago, the "Heller 5" were less easy to read which makes me think that they were actually impartial and ruling on the merits of the case.

To me that means if the judges ask stupid questions and seem to enjoy listening to the anti-gun lawyer talk about how bad guns are, they are going to vote against us. If they ask questions about the law, scrutiny and historical meaning of the second amendment, I get optimistic but at the reversible 9'th, I never know what to think.

The orals seemed to go well but the briefs are what counts and I've read briefs that sound like a slam dunk wind up losing so I don't know what to think there either.

I must admit I did find myself feeling a touch optimistic overall at how the panel asked questions. They seemed to question the defendants more frequently and ask questions that in reality should have been easy to answer, but because the answer was detrimental to defendant's position, required a longer discussion. Unfortunately, it IS the 9th Circus, so that optimism didn't last long. The Panel seemed less focused on the nature of the challenge necessarily, and more focused on what level of scrutiny counsels thought they should apply.

It was taken back and stayed pending McDonald v. Chicago enbanc which was a clear case of an anti-gun judge messing with a correct ruling and hiding behind an enbanc vote but that's different than a pannel who didn't seem like a bunch of antis handing down an unconstitutional decision.

I do like that the Panel seemed willing to at least consider that A.) a right to self-defense was part of the core right to KABA and B.) that a right might claim a higher priority than a state's interest in a particular situation.

Not to throw stones, but I also understand the CGF people being displeased with parties' decision in the San Diego case to not challenge the statute as well, from a strategy standpoint. IMHO it would have made S.D. counsel's job immensely more difficult to do both.

Did he really say that you can do that without qualification? In the audio I'm only hearing him say that under AB 144 you can carry an unloaded gun into a bar with the owner/tenant's permission. If you could point me to where he says otherwise that would be great, I've been looking but can't find it. ETA: he's clear that need the owner/tenant's permission to openly carry unloaded in a bar (e.g., 26:00 of the Richards audio).

As I didn't have the luxury of listening to the audio multiple times and I was already a little punch drunk from the astonishing realization that he came to court completely unprepared (initially some of us were wondering if he was arguing the wrong case) it's entirely possible that I may have misstated what he said (though not what I heard).

You should come to Oral Arguments some time, Fabio. The rest of the Michel team managed to make it.

I didn't think anyone claimed Gura was a master orator, spellbinding and riveting. What they claim is that he's a master litigator, knows how to cut to the chase, knows his case inside and out, and probably knows his opponent's case better than the opponent.

Agreed. Gura definitely shows up prepared, with a well thought out argument that he works hard to keep on track.

IIRC (which I often don't), Gura has mentioned before that we are best served in litigation in his opinion by narrowing the scope of what we're asking for and tailoring the argument such a fashion that we are focused on one or at most two specific arguments/concepts, which make it more difficult for the court to rule against.

(my analysis of the above, NOT from A. Gura)
By throwing in everything and the kitchen sink, we allow the court to pick and choose what it wishes, essentially providing the court with room to maneuver in ruling against our interests.

I hope so, because the orals seemed really...unprofessional. I expected much more polished presentations, at least from Clement and Gura. I came away assuming they must not matter too much, glad to have some confirmation.

Not going out on any limbs there. Still, didn't it seem like the female judge was very pro-2A? Maybe it's not possible to determine a judges personal feeling from the questions they ask, when they interrupt counsel, etc, but if I were an anti, she would have worried me greatly.

I don't put anything past the courts at this point. The orals in Kachalsky were very positive, and look at that abortion of a ruling that was passed down. I'm fairly confident that the more questions asked about the law the more the judges are just looking for holes to thread through or punt to the SCOTUS.

San Diego's attorney was attempting to do some spectacular rhetorical gymnastics. The sheriff doesn't burden the right, the statute does, but the statute pertaining to concealed carry is not unconstitutional? LOL

Hawaii's plaintiff's attorney seemed very discombobulated. He didn't seem to be very prepared to argue his case, which is suprising considering he had just heard 2 other attorneys argue more effectively on the broader issue. The "good news" is that his request before the court was only for a preliminary injunction against the law Hawaii was trying to implement, rather than challenging a sheriff's policy or the statute itself.

Here's a picture of the Baker attorney:

We already have a law in place, and that is what the PI is for. We were well ready to argue the case. Trying to compare my attorney to Gura or Clement would be a disservice as both are at the pinnacle of experience for 2a matters.

We were able to answer the courts questions, and more importantly help elicit some very good questions from the panel.

I love the arm chair quarterbacks who don't have too much of an idea what is going on, but are dead set on bashing not only my friend, but my counsel. I'll take opinions of the people we talked to there and others like esqappellate.

We already have a law in place, and that is what the PI is for. We were well ready to argue the case. Trying to compare my attorney to Gura or Clement would be a disservice as both are at the pinnacle of experience for 2a matters.

We were able to answer the courts questions, and more importantly help elicit some very good questions from the panel.

I love the arm chair quarterbacks who don't have too much of an idea what is going on, but are dead set on bashing not only my friend, but my counsel. I'll take opinions of the people we talked to there and others like esqappellate.

I'd suggest ignoring a person that apparently does not know the law we are challenging has been implemented for quite sometime know.

Gura did exactly what he needed to do for this case. The ramblings, lies, and missteps of all 3 defense attorneys should not serve them well. If the court remains rational and fair and not with a sinister agenda, then we should win.

Being present at the hearings was quite an experience and hearing Gura and Clement was soul lifting. I am hopeful that we will win, if not at the Circuit then at the SCOTUS. We have the best on our side and they have the worst.